Dennis Bernstein: In terms of the destroyed documents, the Crown Prosecution Service is saying they don't have the slightest idea what documents were destroyed or the implications of those documents. Do you believe that?
Estelle Dehon: I think I do believe that. As I understand it, the email account has been completely destroyed. There is no way of getting it back. At a very high level we know that whatever was in the email account of that lawyer having to do with Assange's case is now gone. All that remains is the correspondence that was printed out. And we are told that we have been provided with all the emails that exist in hard copy, albeit heavily redacted. Today, however, it was revealed that, despite assurances from the Crown Prosecution Service that they had released all the relevant documents, it turns out they may have uncovered some further emails.
Dennis Bernstein: Britain has worked very closely with the United States in intelligence matters. Is there any indication that the big hand of the United States has been dictating the course of events here, for example, by preventing the Swedish ambassador from conducting the interview with Assange and possibly finding out that there wasn't any substance to the charges against him?
Estelle Dehon: There is certainly no evidence of that in the information that has been disclosed to us or in what has been presented in court. What we don't know is what the documents that have not been disclosed might show in that regard. We don't know if there has been any influence exerted by the United States.
A key part of my client, Ms. Maurizio's, request was for correspondence between the Crown Prosecution Service and the US State Department and the US Department of Justice. The response we had today was essentially a blanket "no." The Crown Prosecution Service will neither confirm nor deny whether such correspondence exists.
One of the things we will be asking the tribunal to rule on is that that is not a lawful approach for them to take. Our freedom of information law does not deal in blanket bans, it doesn't countenance that kind of secrecy. Our freedom of information law looks at the public interest and makes an objective determination about whether information should be confirmed or denied.
Dennis Bernstein: What is at the core of this case for you? What do you think this is really all about?
Estelle Dehon: First of all, I should explain that we were not before a high court today, we were before a body called an information tribunal. We may end up in the court system if we don't get the type of decision we think we should get in the tribunal system. But right now we are still at the very early stages.
In terms of what I think is at the heart of this case, I believe it is the clash between free speech and freedom of the press versus an official culture of secrecy. One of the great hopes of the information access regime which was put in place in 2000 in the United Kingdom was that it would foster a culture of openness. There wouldn't be any area where the stock response was to shut down and not to engage with the media.
Unfortunately, in certain areas such as extradition matters, it hasn't had that effect. The ethos of the freedom of information act, the important watchdog role that journalists play, simply hasn't featured on their radar.
And then, of course, Julian Assange's case is a very particular one. It is clear from the limited material we have been provided that the Crown Prosecution Service believed from the start that this was not just another extradition request. That is clearly because of the personality involved and because of the work Assange has undertaken with WikiLeaks. At the heart of this case is the clash between a very open, non-state organization taking state documents and publishing outside of what a lot of countries are familiar with, between that and a culture of secrecy.
My hope is that in some small way this information tribunal will confront the public authorities who still look to be secret first and say to them, that is not the right approach. You have to consider properly and carefully the public interest in disclosure. Our own information commissioner has acknowledged that there was a significant public interest in the information requested by Ms. Maurizi. If that is the case, you cannot just close up and refuse to provide information. That cannot be your stock response.
Dennis Bernstein: Would you refer to Julian Assange as a journalist?
Estelle Dehon: We consider that he is an editor. Ms. Maurizi explained this to the tribunal today. As traditional journalists do, Assange speaks to sources and obtains information. And then he and WikiLeaks seek to validate that information. That is the editorial role. Then he works with media partners to release the information. That process, while it doesn't conform to the traditional media process, is in our view a type of journalism. We have characterized him as an editor and WikiLeaks as a journalistic organization.
Certainly Ms. Maurizi, in her role as an investigative journalist working with WikiLeaks, is a very clear example of a defender of democracy, a watchdog within the media looking to oppose corruption and shine light where it has not been shone before.
Dennis Bernstein: The courageous Israeli journalist Amira Hass once described the role of the journalist as "to monitor centers of power and report back to the people."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
2
2
